altho i agree f-16 carry heavy loads better, i dont think bomb hauling constitute ‘most regards’,
and gripen does win on a couple of points here too, namely sortie generation, improvised air field capable, and cheaper per bomb per target.
Sortie generation on the basis of turn-around times? the Gripen E will be expected to have lower reliability than the F-16 Block 70 for a while till all its systems mature and the bugs and kinks are ironed out. And how is the Gripen E going to offer a “cheaper bomb per target” when you consider that the Gripen E will most likely cost more than the F-16 Block 70, especially so when you consider that the F-16 line already exists and does not have to be built in parallel. it will be disassembled and then reassembled, instead of having 3 duplicate lines in Brazil, Sweden and India.
On acceleration: agree f-16 should by all accounts accelerate better at subsonic speed, but it is far from given that is the case from transonic on,
as drag increases, and i dont think anyone in his right mind is going to fly below transonic in battle, or even in hostile environment,
so subsonic acceleration is irrelevant IMO.
it is also not so that f-16 “may have certain maneuvering drawbacks in certain situations”
it has, period, 3 times over.
firstly, the norwegian pilots said, in the newspaper Loke linked to, that i’m unable to google, that gripen A/C out-turn f-16
secondly the norwegian f-16 version in turn out-turn block 70
and thirdly gripen E out-turn gripen C
And if the F-16 can accelerate better at subsonic speeds, how is it that the Norwegian pilots in the F-16 were out-turned by the Gripen C? A turning dogfight is after all going to be at subsonic speeds and there the fighter that accelerates better will have an edge.
All this, x>y and y>z hence x>z type analysis is really not applicable in the real world scenario. Otherwise, one could just do a paper analysis and no real evaluation would be needed. Just an example would be the Ecuadorean pilots who claimed that the Kfir and the Cheetah, two fighters with very different T/W ratios (thanks to the Atar engine’s lower thrust), perform very comparably, since the Kfir has slightly higher drag due to a fin root air intake on the Kfir! And like I mentioned earlier, the Gripen C’s Swiss evaluation report was not so glowing, not even for its much vaunted sensor fusion! Not being rated satisfactory for most of the SwAF’s missions was not the best advertisement of the Gripen C. And while the Gripen E is a new aircraft, and will overcome some of the drawbacks pointed out in the Swiss evaluation, one would have to swallow Saab calling it the “World’s most advanced fighter” with a fistful of salt. But then, Saab are masters of PR. But they’re up against LM, another PR master.
on recce, you cant beat a side looking radar when scanning the ground.
lastly if you cant win the sky, then you cant drop bombs at will either, so at least i rate A2A higher,
i’d rate F-22 over B-52 as the better bomb truck if it was the only two available warplanes and i had to pick one
About winning in the sky, the IAF has over 250 Su-30MKIs and now will have 36 Rafales with Meteors. These are going to face off against JF-17s and F-16 Block 52s if at all they are ever to go to war with Pakistan. I know who I would back in such a scenario. Against the J-10s and J-11s and Su-30MKKs and so on, the Gripen E doesn’t bring that much more to the table than what a Su-30MKI with the BARS or Rafale with RBE2 AESA does.
Ideally speaking, the IAF should simply get another 36-40 Rafales off the shelf and call it a day. But that isn’t likely to happen and so this MII tender. But it isn’t like the sole purpose of this new MII tender will be a very capable air to air performer, but rather a versatile jet with a good payload and range. A large arsenal of cheap bombs and standoff weapons that have been integrated already is a big plus.
And an AESA equipped F-16 with the newest AMRAAM variant will be a handful in the air. I don’t think anyone will dispute that.
Sign In
